FLYPTV

FLYPTV

Active Member
Couple of weeks ago, my wife and I went flying. After lunch we walked out of the restaurant and visited with a gentleman from Bakersfield that had an RV4. Nice looking RV4 too. Ever since I saw that airplane, it has had me thinking. It was a basic RV4 with a Harmon "fast back."

Since there seems to be a "Renaissance" in the RV3 world, brought on most likely by someone famous. :D [ed. Randy Lervold....dr]

I have always liked the looks of the F-1 Rocket, and the Harmon Rocket, just not a big fan of placing the -540 on the airplane, and at $4+ for a gallon of gas it seems the cost benefit curve crosses at a pretty low point. Oh yea, I really don't need to do 250 MPH either.

So, I am wondering about the potential of building an RV4 with all the appearance virtues of the Harmon Rocket. However, when it comes to the pointy end, just having a nicely tuned up IO-360 surrounded by a "cheekless" cowl, would be fine with me.

You would have a "Fast Back," taller Landing Gear legs, a sleeker (IMO) cowl, efficient power, and the handling characteristics that go along with the -4. Not to mention the kit is cheaper than the -8. Although, when you get done with Harmon's add ons its about the same.

Just brainstorming. . . I thought owning half of an RV would squelch my desire to build. . . but it hasn't.:eek: Although having one to go fly, will make building a more slow, thorough and quality project easier. . .

Anybody have any ideas? Has this been done before? Am I basically describing an HR1? How would you go about getting a "cheekless" cowl? Hmmm. . . participate if you'd like. . . I am going flying. . .:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First thing that crosses my mind is that to achieve a "cheek-less" cowl, you will have to widen the fuselage. Then starts the fun...one modification begats another modification and so on....
Great idea, but don't underestimate the work involved.
 
Keep The Cheeks

I think you have a great idea! I love the fast back Rocket look, but I think that the cheek cowls add something special. I always liked the RV-4 cowl, especially with the smoothed-in round inlets, better than the 8 any day. So, go for the rocket look, but keep the cheeks!

Tom
 
Keep them

I believe that the cheek cowl is faster because of a smaller frontal area. Most F-1 raceplanes have cheek cowls too.

My .02
 
Great idea, keep the cheeks

It seems that the cheeks also should assist in managing cooling airflow, allowing better cooling and less cooling drag.

I have also seen a few fastback '4s and to me they look fantastic.

Anybody know how much the fastback modification helps the speed in an RV-4?

Regards,
Dale Lambert
RV-6 finishing kit
 
Rocket Light...

I believe the gentleman's plane you were looking at was Mean Green that was built and is owned by Tim Barnes (Bakersville). His is probably the best "Rocket-back" 4 around. He is next door neighbor with John Harmon so he has had plenty of Rockets around for inspiration, as well as input from John who has built a bunch of modified 4s. Harmon offers the basic parts to modify a 4 or go forward and build a Rocket.

meea701lx8.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

Todd's Canopies makes a modified canopy that works well. I'd stick with the
4 cowl as it is also the best cooling cowl that Van makes!

I'm basically building a copy of Mean Green....pics are elsewhere on the Forum. I've used Harmon's turtledeck parts, Todd's canopy and an 0-360 with Hartzell CS prop....Flying soon.
 
Cheekless RV-4

There is a gorgeous modified RV-4 built with a sliding canopy and no cheeks in existence somewhere in the US. It was built by Joe Meyer (?) in the Duncan, B.C. area and was sold to someone in the US. Someone undoubtedly can direct you to a picture of it. It is one of the most beautiful -4s I have seen.
 
Time to fess up...

Ok, I'll come out of the closet too :). I've been pondering the same general idea also. I'd llike a bit more legroom in the 4. More width would be ok but not strictly necessary. I'ld like the firewall forward structure beefed up so I would feel comfortable hanging a 360 up front.

So, HR wings with the xtra fuel. A bit more legroom up front and a 360 Engine. I just need sombody to kit me a fuselage, so I don't have to hack together a one-off. Hmmm... I wonder what Mark Frederick is up to these days.... :)

John
 
That is the exact airplane I was looking at. . .

Back from an awesome day of flying.

That is the exact -4 I AM talking about. If the cheeks offer that much, then so be it, cheeks are in. The rest I like. Ah, I knew you guys would know about this. . . Does the Turtle Deck/Canopy combo alone offer a speed increase?

However, after an hour of flying next to, under, above, and behind the RV-8 known as "High Roller" (check You Tube later, I'll put up a link in the -8 area), I am torn once again. Oh well, no decision to make for awhile. I need to sit my bottom in a 4 and see how roomy it is. . .

BTW. . . "Bakersville" ? ? ?:eek: Is that what you get when you cross a Porterville with a Bakersfield? :D;):p
 
What is RV-4 rocket really

FLYPTV said:
You would have a "Fast Back," taller Landing Gear legs, a sleeker (IMO) cowl, efficient power, and the handling characteristics that go along with the -4. Not to mention the kit is cheaper than the -8. Although, when you get done with Harmon's add ons its about the same. Just brainstorming. . . I thought owning half of an RV would squelch my desire to build. . . but it hasn't.:eek: Although having one to go fly, will make building a more slow, thorough and quality project easier. . .
Click to expand...
Oh it would make it much harder. The guy to help you is John Harmon. John Harmon would be the one to talk to. He may still have some Harmon I parts you can merry with a RV-4 kit.

The first "Rocket" was the Harmon Rocket I, a RV-3, with a 200HP IO360 & fast back. The Harmon may have had a wider firewall, but I'm not sure. The cowl was semi-no cheek at the firewall but pinched down. It did not have the RV-4 cowl fairing riveted onto the fuselage. The cowl was similar to a stock cowl at the fwd end. Harmon may have done it all with the cowl? The gear legs where stock length I recall. I would not wish for long gear; it makes handling and taxi visability harder. Tall gear on the Harmon II is just for a larger Prop dia. I don't think the Harmon I wings where clipped.

You could do the same with a RV-4.

I'll call it "The Ultimate Four" or Jr. Rocket, it would have:
Biggest 4-jug'er you can stuff in - IO360/IO390 (200HP/210HP)
Turtle deck / fast back - CHECK
Wider Firewall and Cheek-less cowl - optional
Clip Wings? May be ** (stock RV-4 - 23ft span, RV-3 - 19ft11in)

** Instead of clip wings, no wing tips or custom smaller tips to reduce wing area and span.
 
Last edited:
RV-4 Fastback at LOE 2007

The RV-4 mentioned at LOE 2007 was built and is flown by my brother, Pat Brietigam (N453GB). He flies out of Selma Airport just south of Fresno, California.
Pat used a lot of John Harmon's parts including a Rocket canopy. The cowling is his own design. I think he did an absolutely wonderful job! But, then again, I'm very prejudice.

Chuck Brietigam
RV-4 deceased
RV-3 flying
RV-6 soon to be flying
 
Chuck,
Your RV-3 is the featured wall paper on this site today. Did you catch that? Also noticed Van still uses it on his website... Dude, your famous! <BG>
DM




Chuck Brietigam said:
The RV-4 mentioned at LOE 2007 was built and is flown by my brother, Pat Brietigam (N453GB). He flies out of Selma Airport just south of Fresno, California.
Pat used a lot of John Harmon's parts including a Rocket canopy. The cowling is his own design. I think he did an absolutely wonderful job! But, then again, I'm very prejudice.

Chuck Brietigam
RV-4 deceased
RV-3 flying
RV-6 soon to be flying
Click to expand...
 
Nothing Like the Real Thing...

Having sold my lightweight RV4 this year I can say with 230 hours of Rocket time under my wings, Rockets Rock! A lightweight "Super 4" would be very cool but the IO-540 powered HR2 is the finest flying RV of any kind I have flown and has proven more efficient than my RV4 over a given distance. The raw power, faster roll rate and bigger cockpit make for a dandy machine, spendy yes, but a great airplane.

It's the natural next step for a dedicated RV4 driver...

Rob Ray
 
I've flown the -3,-4,-6,-7,-8, and the Super-8. The only one that comes close to the "experience" of the HR/F1 was the Super-8. The Super-8 or the -8 in general is not as comfortable as the Rocket is, although visibility in the -8 is the best if you can forget about the rollbar. Out of the RV lineage nothing handles or performs as well as the Rocket. I have a dozen or so hours in the EVO and found my type of flying is better suited with the sport wing. The EVO shines up high with the additional wing area. I've climbed from 1000msl to 10K msl in a Rocket in 2.5 minutes. As it turns out the extra power helps in economy, and I have been on quite a few trips and have compared fuel receipts with friends with Rockets, and at RV speeds they burn the same or less than the RV's. You can take a -4 and stuff whatever you want in it but you will be hard pressed to beat the combination of the 540 and the Rocket.
 
All True But.....

I was at OSH in 2002 when I bought my Rocket/F1. What a GREAT plane. I was transitioning from an RV-4 and the power and acceleration was breathtaking...and the 215 knot cruise was great and, as posted here, on a given trip of 200+ miles, running side by side with my -4, -6, -7, and -8 freinds, I rarely used more gass than them and soemtimes less, however...

IF you ever were caught having to stay low, ie, WX, icing, short trip, etc, the O-540 will use more gas...a lot more. Check fuel flow on t/o and cruies below 3,000 MSL compared to an O-320 or an O-360....a lot more.

Secondly, my Rocket had a Dymar IO-540, worth aprox $42K at the time, with a $12K balanced Hartzel up front, electronic ignition etc. Everytime I started and flew that plane I used to ask God not to let THAT DAY be the day I had to fix something because any work required is going to cost $$$ X the number of cylinders involved.

Long story short, i sold my Rocket to a guy who had has a little more disposable income than me and moved back down to a four banger. My -6 has a Monty Barret IO-360 angle valve firebreather that is not quite as fast as the Rocket but just as comfortable and not near as scary everytime I worry about upcoming reparirs/maintenance issues....

Oh, and the insurance for a Rocket is MUCH higher too...

I still love the Rocket and get to fly a Super -8 every now and then, but glad not to have the $$$ tired up in it anymore.

Just another perspective.
 
Worth the price?

I have to agree with JJ that the Rocket is a more $$$ machine, but I paid alot less for my 96' HR2 than a new Cub costs with a bunch of $$$ left! Mine belongs to my small business so it's costs are deductible (highly recommended). 20 squared down low is 7GPH at 150 knots, same as my 150hp RV4. Insurance? AUA for just a bit more than my 4.

I know of an overhauled IO540 for sale for 17K obo along with an old RV4 kit for 5K. A little shopping around and you could build a real rocket for what a high end 4 would cost...It is THE best bang for a bit more bucks!

my 2 cents..
Rob Ray
 
I'll let RocketBob respond but I'll bet he's building his F1 and spending less money than he spent building his RV-6! It doesn't have to be more expensive. Bob got an engine cheap before the RV-10's drove the prices out of sight. His prop was only a couple of thousand bucks used, and with VFR avionics, it will be less that $60K total I bet.

Fuel wise, I can burn less than a comparable RV if I want to fly efficiently. Sure I can burn more, but rarely feel the need to do so. Yes, insurance is more but it's all relative. It's a myth that the Rockets all cost a bucket of cash more to acquire and operate. They CAN cost you a bunch more, but they don't HAVE to.
 
Do you start with a 4 kit to build a rocket, or is it just specific parts from a 4 that you need to build a rocket? How does the 4 modification work?
 
It's an RV4, but...

Yes, the Harmon Rocket starts as an RV4 kit. The F-1 is it's own entity. You purchase an RV4 kit from Van, buy John Harmon's plans, parts and finishing kit and build a Rocket from both kits. At Sun N Fun in 04' I stopped by Van's booth and spoke with "the man himself" about various subjects. I asked him if he would continue supporting the RV4 kit. He grinned and said "of course, what would the Harmon Rocket guys do without it"
The HR2 fwd fuselage skin is .040 and the wings are shortened with the same number of ribs, just moved closer together. This increases the wing loading and the handling, much improved over the RV4. The cockpit is much larger, and your sitting height is above the fuselage with a better overall view and more room. The ailerons are the same length as the RV4, the flaps are shorter making for impressive roll rates. John Harmon told me the RV4 has the same wing loading as a C-152, the Rocket is the same as a Baron. It really shows inflight! The overall airplane flies better than my 4 in most of the areas I like:
1. F16-like takeoffs out of my 1800' strip. (trust me, I know what F16 takeoffs are like)Vertical acro is much improved, almost akin to an Extra 300.
2. Great cruise climb rate to altitude, 200 knot TAS at 11.5 gph at 8500'.
3. Same or better efficiency as an RV at RV speeds (9gph at 165 knots)
4. Final approach speed 69 knots with a RV4 sink rate, 62 knots for really short strip with a "power-on to touchdown". This is nice when you land on a semi-short grass strip every day. See if your Glasair or Lancair buddy can follow you into my strip!

Downsides: $$$$ it costs more to build than an RV4 but not more than an 7 8 or 9. Like Randy P. said, it is the most Bang for your Buck.

I would build a Rocket over an RV8 any day. I have about 50 hours in a 200HP RV8 and the Rocket outflies it hands down. I fly the Rocket every evening I can and the RV grin never goes away, I really like it. I loved my RV4 and put almost 1500 hours on it, but fly the Rocket more overall. I can fly alongside my neighbors Cub or an A36 Bonanza easily plus do great acro. Yes Dayton, there is no RV other than Dave Anders RV4 who can keep up with you, but his RV4 has enough Rocket parts on it to be one and his IO-360 and prop probably cost more than mine and I have alot more range, cockpit room and baggage space. If you want to burn less fuel, pull the throttle back.(if you can) :)

My Dos Centavos...

Rob Ray
 
Last edited:
Rosket lite

Hey Rob

I feel my self being seduced by the dark side:D

Here at Carson city with a D/A over 6000' all summmer long it is impressive to watch a Rocket launch out of here. There climb rate must be over 3000'/min.
But; Do you think a lite RV4 with a IO390 with 250hp would have close to the same climb rate? and maybe cost less to build then a Rocket?
 
IO-360 HP?

smokyray said:
Yes, the Harmon Rocket starts as an RV4 kit. (Stuff Cut)

Yes Dayton, there is no RV other than Dave Anders RV4 who can keep up with you, but his RV4 has enough Rocket parts on it to be one and his IO-360 and prop probably cost more than mine and I have alot more range, cockpit room and baggage space. If you want to burn less fuel, pull the throttle back.(if you can) :)

My Dos Centavos...

Rob Ray
Click to expand...

I heard that Dave Anders' RV-4 was quicker in a Copperstate race than a HR2 in that race. And that Dave's RV-4 used more fuel than the HR2.
I also heard that the Harmon Rocket (mod RV-3) IO-360 was 230+ hp.
Makes me wonder what horsepower Dave's IO-360 can produce.

Regards,
Jim Ayers
 
Speed is life...

I was lucky enough to meet Dave Anders and get a tour of his shop and RV4 last summer. Dave's IO-360 was custom built for him by LyCon in Visalia CA. His prop is also a custom built Hartzell optimized for operations at 3000 RPM. The more air and gas you can ram through the cyllinders, the more power you get up to a point. His airplane masterfully exploits every ounce of power and efficiency out of the RV4 design. Of course he has lamb tires, low and tight wheel pants and what looks like a luggage wheel for a tailwheel. He has faired all of his hinges, flaps, aileron gaps and controls. His prop clearance is closer than I would like on some of the places I frequent especially my home strip. It is however a wonderful airplane.
For me, the Rocket gives me the speed and range (44+10 gallons) I like. You also get great utility with my big (380X150X5) tires and big baggage area and more passenger room. Yes an IO-390 powered RV4 built lite would be an amazing machine but the IO-390 goes for $29K. Used IO-540's can be found for 15K minus accessories and there are alot more of them out there. Do I love the RV4? Yes. Do I like the Rocket more...yes.

Your mileage may vary...

Rob Ray
 
If only it where true

smokyray said:
Dave's IO-360 was custom built for him by LyCon in Visalia CA. His prop is also a custom built Hartzell optimized for operations at 3000 RPM.

IO-390 goes for $29K. Used IO-540's can be found for 15K minus accessories and there are a lot more of them out there. Do I love the RV4? Yes. Do I like the Rocket more...yes. Your mileage may vary... Rob Ray
Click to expand...
It use to be true you could get parallel valve 540's cheap, but not any more. Lots of experimentals are using this engine now like the Rockets, RV-10's, Comp Air and Bearhawk. Not saying you can't find a deal, but 10-15 years ago it was very true, 540's where cheaper than 320/360's. No kit planes used the engine; even the Glasair III used an angle valve 540. Chances are you'll pay more way more for any 540 today. Also, Dave told me he limits RPM to 2,900 rpm? May be you told a secret? :D He also overhauls his prop and engine well short of 2000 TBO as a matter course. He also had to eat an engine or two.
 
Last edited:
waddabout...

Ok, to the original subject....

How about an RV 4 powered with a 180+ hp O-360. It just happens to have Rocketized wings and say oh... an F1 fuselage....

Should be pretty light, have a Firewall structure designed to carry a heavier engine, perform same or better than an RV8, be roomy inside, etc. etc.

I can't seem to shake this idea, it just won't go away :).

John
 
Furthermore and in conclusion...

The 180 C/S RV4 is a wonderful machine, period. The best one I have flown is my buddy Ringo's 180/wood prop full inverted fuel oil version with Airflow Performance fuel injection. Light, fast, smooth and fun. Of course I never flew an RV4 I didn't like.
Mark Frederick has already done a Firewall Fwd setup for a 4 banger in the F-1 Rocket. Kept light with an IO-360, it could be a wonderful machine. He just didn't have the interest. All of his sales are 6 bangers so far. Van is selling more RV8's than any kit right now, so the RV4 will be relegated to being an "old kit" to Vans Aircraft. A great airplane nonetheless...So, call Mark, build an F-1 with a 4-banger and let us know how it flies!

For me though, The IO-540 powered Rocket is it...

Rob Ray
 
Last edited:
Fun to read this thread, thanks for the input. . . but

Did anyone see Rod Bower's Showplanes -8?

After having the opportunity to sit in that airplane last week. . . I think that about does it for me. . . That is one nice airplane. . . beautiful. Really like the Showplanes Fast Back.

Thanks.
 
FLYPTV said:
Did anyone see Rod Bower's Showplanes -8?

After having the opportunity to sit in that airplane last week. . . I think that about does it for me. . . That is one nice airplane. . . beautiful. Really like the Showplanes Fast Back.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I also am quite enamored by the Show Planes fastback.

Question, what engine is in Bobs Plane??

Another question, if you have sat is an 8 before, did you notice a difference in shoulder room with the fastback????

Thanks.
 
don't give up

Smokey's the Man. 1500 hrs in a light weight 4, flown hundreds of hrs in different RV's, and if he says the Rocket is the best available RV-type, I believe him. Period. Don't give up on a lite version yet though. It's all about EXCESS POWER. Fighter Pilots call it Ps (P-sub-S), and the more you have of it the better you like it. You can climb, accelerate, sustain turns, or a combination of all three with enough of it. A rough measure of an airplane's ability to generate it is it's Thrust-to-Weight ratio, or in GA terms POWER LOADING. Let's say Smokey's 4 weighed 950 lbs empty and his Rocket 1200 lbs. The 4 had 150HP and the Rocket 260HP. That gives an empty wt Power loading of 6.3 vs 4.6 lbs/HP... Bingo! It aint just about power, cause weight is just as important. Even Smokey would most likely rather be strapped to an F-16 vs an F-15 even though the Eagle had twice the power. The Viper was lighter, smaller and more nimble, but still had the ablity to generate as much excess power as the F-15. Yeah. Keep it light boys. Dream on, go for it!
... meanwhile I'm having a ball in my FP 8. Maybe some day...
 
my rocket came in heavy and it's one of those, "Wish it were lighter." 1290 lbs.

but hey, it still has mucho thrust and flies hands off, much more stable and solid than the RV7a.

I swear the hot rod RV will lift off shorter than the HR II though.
 
Rod's engine?

Mike S said:
I also am quite enamored by the Show Planes fastback.

Question, what engine is in Bobs Plane??

Another question, if you have sat is an 8 before, did you notice a difference in shoulder room with the fastback????

Thanks.
Click to expand...


Sorry for the delay in responding. Rod has the IO-360 180hp version, I think its an angle valve (not sure, is that even an offering), has an extension of some sort to accommodate the Showplanes cowl and the spinner.

As far as the fit of the Showplanes fast back. The shoulder area seems to be the same. I have limited RV-8 "seat time" so I may not be the authority to ask. On the standard -8 the area that meets the roll bar seems to close in on you and obscure the panel edges a bit. That is not the case on the Showplanes kit. In my opinion there is more visibility of the panel. Looking out the window is a lot like our -6 (tip up). That is a great advantage. I am 6ft tall and 195 lbs with about a 42" chest I fit great. The canopy frame does seem to be very sturdy too.

I don't know that Rod wants to let the cat out of the bag on his performance until he has flown off the time and has a good idea of what the airplane can do. But when you ask him how it is performing. . . there is a definite excitement in his response. Maybe he'll go on the -8 board and give a run down.

BTW, my partner on the -6 has a saying, "Rod Bower doesn't build airplanes, he makes jewelry." This is a clear representative of that lineage, and you should see his S-51. . . can't wait to hear/see that thing roar over my house. Just beautiful.
 
Merry Christmas everyone,

I am looking at doing a single seat fuselage for the -4 with the HRIII fast back/raised turtledeck. With the plans in hand it is totally possible to use only a handfull of Harmon's parts to get the fastback and it would be easy as anything to incorporate this right into a two seat -4 standard fuselage. If someone is after a rocket lite for just the clipped wings and fastback - I think this is a reasonable option. The VS needs a minimal amount of change to mate with the fuse over the new turtledeck. There is a single skin running from the back of the seat (or rear seat on a two seater,) and three extensions to three standard -4 bulkheads on the fuse.

The clipped wings don't really change the wing spars at all....just (and this is really what the plans make it look like) chop off the ends, move the ribs along the prepunched holes, and order a few of Harmon's skins for the new shape of the 47 gal tanks. I think it would be just as easy to clip the wings, order -4 wing skins undrilled, leave the tanks as is, cut down the skins as necessary and drill the skins using the predrilled ribs...looks too easy.

Both of these mods seem to cover most of the 'Lite' conversation (except for the whole fuselage widening thing since the HRIII is meant for the standard -4 fuse width. For a lite, just use van's firewall, mount, gear, cheeks, and cowl to keep it looking like a real live -4. You are talking about 2000??? dollars minus the cost of the -4 parts you would remove from Van's kit at ordering.

What do you all think? A $50K f-1 kit or a $14K RV kit with $2000 dollars in HRIII parts to have the fastback, clipped wings, big gas tanks, and a 4 banger. Remember too, that Harmon's "meant just for Reno HRIII single seat" came in at 1080lbs empty. Subtract about 250 pounds or so for the difference in io-540 and io-360 engine and prop and you have an 830 pound solo Rv-4. That's with HRIII bulkheads, tanks, gear, skins, mounts, etc - aluminum up to .04 for +/-14g's! What could the empty weight go down to with standard Van's parts up front?

John
 
Last edited:
Rocket Lite

I have enjoyed reading the previous discussion on Rocket Like variations when I take a break from working on my version of a Rocket Lite in the garage. I went through all these thoughts before starting my RV-4 in 2002 and I am now finishing the fuselage skinning the turtle deck. The parts from John Harmon cost me about $300.00. John told me how to modify the RV-4 canopy frame to fit the turtle deck and the minor mod to the vertical stab to clear the turtle deck. I am planning on using a long nose fixed pitch cowl on mine with a constant speed prop. Does anyone out there have experience with the extended hub fixed pitch props that I would need to use with this combination. I know that Hartzell, MT and Whirwind all make extended hub props for this cowl. I would enjoy hearing your experiences.

Roger Avery
RV-4 fuselage
 
Roger -

Did you modify the wings or go with bigger fuel tanks? Also, are you using a standard -4 tail? .02 rudder?

John
 
Rocket Lite

I have not modified the wings although the RV-6 or Rocket fuel tanks are a very appealing option. I am using the RV-7 sheared wing tips. I decided not to clip the wings to retain the slow flight of the RV-4. I am using a standard tail kit with the .020 skins on the elevators and rudder. I would like to have modified the rudder to make it counterbalanced, but for now it is stock. I also have an F-1 Rocket intake chin scoop that I am planning on using with the long nose fixed pitch cowl and an XP-360 with forward facing injector. I have also modified the lower firewall similar to what is done with the Harmon Rockets as recommended by a friend who has about 2,500 hrs on his 180 hp RV-4 and a couple hundred hours on his Rocket. I am interested in hearing what others are contemplating. Roger Avery
 
No Substitute for HP...

Thanks Reheat, I flew a friends 160HP wood prop RV4 last week and it reminded me of how cool the RV4 is! However, I flew my HR2 this evening from my Swamp Strip to MCO and back. 300' takeoff roll from my home strip and blasted east, 197 knots GS at 24/2450 3500' 11.8 gph. When asked by ATC to "speed it up" going into MCO I squared it at 25 and passed an A-320 Airbus on 9 mile final to the parallel runway, woo hoo! (Yeah, I know he was on final, but it still was cool) On departure I was at 1000' AGL before mid-field and headed home at 23 squared at 2500 ft burning 10.7 gph at 180 knots. Very much like the F16, the Rocket has alot of excess power when you need it, but when throttled back it is as efficient as my RV4.
Bottom line, I love it! Would I build a lightweight RV4 with Rocket wings, beefed up fuselage and a big motor? Sure, but the HR2 IS a better airplane if you can afford it. Why not just build an HR2? Cost wise, Rod's fast-back -8 you speak of with the IO-390, mods and paint is on an equal cost with a nice HR2. The Rocket is faster, stronger, prettier and flies better, period. I know which way I would go...

Smokey
 
Line in the sand......

We all have to draw a line $$$ somewhere. Otherwise, we would all be driving F16s :). I know I can't go into a $40k engine and a $15k prop type airplane. But an RV4 with more interior room and easily able(structurally) to carry a big 4-banger in a very good looking package. That still sounds like a good idea. I really view it as being more comparable to an RV-8 rather than a Rocket.

Regardless, unless we can talk Mark into a 4 banger engine mount, the whole thing is moot anyway... But it's fun to talk about.

Happy New Year !!

John
 
From the Boss's desk...

Copied this post from the Rocket Forum...

Hi Fellas:

To reduce some of the speculation,, yes, I'm working on a 4 cyl version, to be called the F4. The base version will be delivered with fewer 'options' in comparison to the F1 -- all this TBD.

The F4 will only be sold as the Sport wing -- not the Evo.

The Evo wing is shifted fwd on the fuse a bit to reduce the heavy elevator feel, and this shift has allowed us to install an even BIGGER engine for those who have a bad case of horsepower desire: TCM IO550 (310HP). It still won't be enough...but this fwd shift of the wing eliminates the Evo wing as an F4 option.

One of our customers came up with an elev bellcrank mod which also reduced the heavy elevator feeling, and this has been added to all new production kits, both Sport wing and Evo.

The F4 will be sold as a parts-only kit with steel gear legs, with options available for pre-built sub-assemblies and Ti legs, and even a full QB kit (this will cost the same as an F1 Sport wing kit). The engine mount will be built to keep the prop disc in the same location as the F1 has it, so it will look very similiar. Gross weight will remain the same, so the usable load could go up by 125LBS or so, but where would you put this much weight?

Getting this project thru R&D should be fairly easy -- I'm thinking we will need to develop only the mount and fwd battery box, and the steel legs, and we're on our way. Then again, past experience would suggest that this attitude is extremely optimistic.

So, how much will it cost? Due to the reduced assembly processes involved, it should be very reasonable. I know what I WANT it to cost, but we still have to get all the beans to the beancounters, and then the final costs will then be available. I hope to have all the data crunched in time for the Southwest Regional Fly-in at Hondo TX on 1 June.

I hope this answers some of your questions -- if you have further questions or suggestions, email me off-list please. f1boss (at) gmail.com

Carry on!
Mark
 
Kinda like a Rocket Lite...

Just flew my friend Paul's new RV-4 here at F14. He just took delivery of it this last weekend after installing a new 3 blade MT prop attached to his recently rebuilt Lycon IO-360 angle valve (220hp) while adding tall gear and new wheel pants. It was extremely smooth running and flew very nicely, maybe a little heavy on the elevator still. I say still because at the recent rebuild he had the Inverted oil system removed. The weight difference between the previous rendition with a Hartzel and Christen Inverted system and now is significant.

Don't have firm numbers yet but suffice to say it is quite easy to exceed redline in level flight...something to watch...and enjoy!

Wishing I had thrown in a couple $$$ more on my new RV-4 Fastback for the MT, impressive and beautiful...but at a cost!!!
 
more blades is smoother

Jetj01 said:
Just flew my friend Paul's new RV-4 here at F14. He just took delivery of it this last weekend after installing a new 3 blade MT prop attached to his recently rebuilt Lycon IO-360 angle valve (220hp) while adding tall gear and new wheel pants. It was extremely smooth running and flew very nicely, maybe a little heavy on the elevator still. I say still because at the recent rebuild he had the Inverted oil system removed. The weight difference between the previous rendition with a Hartzel and Christen Inverted system and now is significant.

Don't have firm numbers yet but suffice to say it is quite easy to exceed redline in level flight...something to watch...and enjoy!

Wishing I had thrown in a couple $$$ more on my new RV-4 Fastback for the MT, impressive and beautiful...but at a cost!!!
Click to expand...

A 3 blade propeller costs more than a 2 blade propeller?

It seems rather silly of MT Propeller to expect their customers to pay for the third blade to be manufacturerd. :)

Jim Ayers
Long Nose RV-4 (modified HR2?)
4 blade MT Propeller (I had to pay for the fourth blade, also.)
 
Rocket lite

There are many good points to the Rocket lite idea. I gave it serious thought before building my F1H Rocket.

However, the original poster's idea that the 540 is a fuel hog just isn't true. The 540 with balanced injectors runs at virtually the same fuel burn as most 4 bangers at the same speed. The key is to run LOP. Very smooth, and very cool temps. And no lead buildup on the plugs. It's all good.

A typical flight for me would be at 2300/20" and 160knots flying next to my buddy's RV-6 with a 160HP and fixed pitch. My fuel flow meter shows about 9gph+/-. Our fuel burns are always the same when we pull up to the pump.

OTOH, when I want to go fast, I just push the black knob and go! Usually when I'm doing that, the fuel burn concerns are secondary to satisfying the need for speed! Woo hoo!

YMMV,
Vince
the tailwheel guy
www.vincesrocket.com/products.htm
 
Not just fuel burn.....

I think the bigger issue is that you are moving up to a whole different cost structure. Those 540's are $45k new and some of you guys are running props that cost more than my lowly O-320. My RV4 insurance runs $1100-$1300/year vs. close to $3k for the Rocket. And of course, the 540 is a gas hog :).

I don't see the F4 class machine as an alternative to the Rocket. I see it as a roomier alternative to an RV4 or a better looking (subjective) alternative to an RV8. I think Randy mentioned he had $150k + into his Rocket. It is gourgeous but I can't make that kind of commitment to my hobby. The F4 might be just the ticket.....

John
 
Smokey,
I got to fly a rocket yesterday... I see your point.:D I'm a changed man! <BG> RV-3 & RV-8 preview plans for sale soon. :rolleyes:
DM


smokyray said:
Thanks Reheat, I flew a friends 160HP wood prop RV4 last week and it reminded me of how cool the RV4 is! However, I flew my HR2 this evening from my Swamp Strip to MCO and back. 300' takeoff roll from my home strip and blasted east, 197 knots GS at 24/2450 3500' 11.8 gph. When asked by ATC to "speed it up" going into MCO I squared it at 25 and passed an A-320 Airbus on 9 mile final to the parallel runway, woo hoo! (Yeah, I know he was on final, but it still was cool) On departure I was at 1000' AGL before mid-field and headed home at 23 squared at 2500 ft burning 10.7 gph at 180 knots. Very much like the F16, the Rocket has alot of excess power when you need it, but when throttled back it is as efficient as my RV4.
Bottom line, I love it! Would I build a lightweight RV4 with Rocket wings, beefed up fuselage and a big motor? Sure, but the HR2 IS a better airplane if you can afford it. Why not just build an HR2? Cost wise, Rod's fast-back -8 you speak of with the IO-390, mods and paint is on an equal cost with a nice HR2. The Rocket is faster, stronger, prettier and flies better, period. I know which way I would go...

Smokey
Click to expand...
 
Smokey,
Is yours an HR 2 or the F-1? If the HR-2, what tail did you use? RV-4 or RV-8?
Yeah, I suspended all capital expenditures on my (bought flying) RV-4 in favor of looking seriously into getting a Rocket going. ;-) I'm having a ball with the 4, but IMHO, there's really NO comparison. They have similarities, but the rocket was rock solid stable, fast and ... more refined I guess. Kind of the natural progression from a four.
Fuel burns were lower than my four at similar speeds too. THAT surprised me. Pretty good day all in all. Two RV-4 flights. One Ducatti 999 ride, then a Rocket ride. I better pick up a trip for next week , because I think I'll need the $$$. :D
Best,
DM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.